EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

I've found that the mp3 format significantly affects the sound of a 
mix. Distorts the high part of the treble, emphasizes the bass, 
does something weird to the stereo image, etc. To get the best 
MP3 encoding, you really have to MIX especially for that format. 
It's the same kind of philosophy used a generation ago when 
producers did separate mixes for LP and cassette. Mixing for 
airplay also gives a number of considerations. A lot of the stuff 
you think about when mixing for radio also apply to MP3 mixing. 
A highly compressed, almost mono mix with few extreme 
frequencies works best. Some genres of music sound just as 
good as MP3 files; others always sound awful. 

That being said, I've used just about every one available for Mac 
and the best I've found is AudioCatalyst. AudioCatalyst has a 
high-frequency mode that encodes a lot of the more extreme 
frequencies that the other encoders ignore. It also has a 
normalize function which is nice for getting a sound as loud as 
possible for the radio.  

I will usually use iTunes for personal use because it's a lot 
faster, but for professional work, I'll always use AudioCatalyst. 


There are several radiostations preferring mp3 to wave.(I do not 
agree with
they're choice.) 
My search is for the best encoder there is .No matter the price.
I get well paid for delivery, and sound, not format.
If a radio prefers mp3, I try to deliver it at least at the competitors
standards.
I'm pleased if I can humor you....
My job is to deliver.....whatever format.....

> It's the same kind of philosophy used a generation ago when 
> producers did separate mixes for LP and cassette. 

Is this really true? I've heard of remastering old tapes for CD, and 
of course mono and stereo mixes in the sixties, but separate mixes 
for cassette releases?

Intrigued,


Guy

I wouldn't consider it. I think any mix for CD should sound good when
transferred to cassette. Otherwise you are mixing for a sonic dynamic that
exceeds many smaller systems. My studio monitors handle much more, for
example, than even my car which has a decent system.

> From: "ronniewibbley" <guy@...>
> Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:18:20 -0000
> To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [exs] Re: re:mp3/itunes [OT]
> 
>> It's the same kind of philosophy used a generation ago when
>> producers did separate mixes for LP and cassette.
> 
> Is this really true? I've heard of remastering old tapes for CD, and
> of course mono and stereo mixes in the sixties, but separate mixes
> for cassette releases?
> 
> Intrigued,
> 
> 
> Guy
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

This is way off topic but:

Never really seperate mixes for tape, cd etc.
Used to do sepearte mastering EQ's for CD/Tape/Vinyl.

For tape you would get an EQ to try and compensate for the 
Dolby Noise reduction that would eventually be applied.
Otherwise the sound just dependent on the level put to tape, 
whether it over saturated/ distorted the tape or not.

For vinyl you had to roll alot of the sub low end off of the eq  
otherwise the needle would just rumble and bounce off of the 
turntable, and I think the depth and width of the grooves required 
on the laquer for low end ate up alot of real estate for additional 
songs, etc.